Standing Committee D

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 - Qualifying clubs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Benton.
 Under clause 61, there still seems to be the outstanding issue of the Caravan Club of Great Britain. The club has approached the Minister on more than one occasion; I am informed that the last time was on 18 March and at that meeting some assurances were given that have not been followed up either in writing or by the Minister himself. Perhaps he can use the clause as an opportunity to give a definitive ruling as to whether the club would be a qualifying club under the requirements of clause 61. 
 The club's normal activities are associated with national, regional and local meetings and rallies, and it is not engaged in regulated entertainment. There is no dispute about whether the club's activity comes under schedule 1(2). The entertainment, if anything, is exclusive to the rally participants, who are club members and not members of the public, and the club was given the assurance that it was not a qualifying club under clause 61. As we also know, its provision of entertainment is not 
''for consideration and with a view to profit''.
 The club needs assurances that it will not be caught in the net by doubt over whether it is a qualifying club. If it is a qualifying club, it would have to seek licences and address the problems that many outdoor activities have in working out how a licence applies—for example, does the licence apply to a field, or a locality? It would have to tackle all those questions that relate to the temporary provision of licences, which is covered later in the clause. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified the situation for the Caravan Club, which has been waiting for a response for about six weeks.

Kim Howells: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton.
 I am surprised that the Caravan Club has chosen not to approach me directly about the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. I had a productive meeting with representatives of the club, which included one very keen member, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). On the basis of the information that the club has so far given to us, it does not appear that it is a qualifying club under the Bill, 
 but we shall keep the matter under review, and I shall try, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, to get in contact with the club again. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 - The general conditions

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 302, in
clause 62, page 36, line 10, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 235, in 
clause 62, page 36, line 10, leave out 'two days' and insert '48 hours'.
 Amendment No. 316, in 
clause 62, page 36, line 10, leave out 'two days' and insert 'one day'.
 Amendment No. 203, in 
clause 62, page 36, line 12, after 'club', insert 
 'unless the right to become members without prior nomination or application is thereby completely excluded,'.
 Amendment No. 317, in 
clause 62, page 36, line 14, leave out 'two days' and insert 'one day'.

Malcolm Moss: There is a little confusion owing to of the number of amendments that were tabled over Easter. We have tabled a range of amendments that refer to different hours, days and weeks and I will try to make some sense of them.
 Essentially, these are probing amendments. We want to elicit the Government's reasons behind some of the periods of time that appear in clause 62. It is my understanding that the interval of two days is lifted from the Licensing Act 1964: presumably, that has worked reasonably well. One of our amendments changes that interval to 48 hours because in some circumstances two days might not give the appropriate authority sufficient time—for example, if the application came towards the end of a day. The amendment changes two days to 48 working hours, which should enable the necessary work to be completed properly. 
 Amendment No. 203 inserts the following phrase after ''club'' in line 12: 
''unless the right to become members without prior nomination or application is thereby completely excluded.''
 That is a form of words that seeks to make some sense of this subsection, which refers to ''Condition 2''. I think that that is lifted from the 1964 Act. It gives rise to a strange interpretation in club rules around the country. The original legislation is unclear, and we do not think that the new wording in subsection (3) makes it clearer for those who run these clubs and have to set down their rules and regulations. Amendment No. 203 seeks to clarify and simplify the meaning and wording of the provision, while maintaining the prevention of instant membership to a club to partake of a drink, which is the reason for the two-day delay. This amendment would prevent the need for fairly incomprehensible sentiments being incorporated into a club's constitution. It would lead to a slightly 
 elongated subsection, but at least it would provide greater clarification of what is intended. 
 Amendment No. 302 probes why two days cannot be extended to four days, if the reason is to prohibit anyone from quickly joining a club to enjoy the benefits of its alcohol licence.

Kim Howells: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to clarify that because I was confused by it. Could he tease out a bit more why four days and two days appear in the same set of amendments?

Malcolm Moss: I prefaced my remarks by saying that there had been a certain amount of confusion over the Easter recess and we have a strong combination of alternative amendments. As they are probing amendments, that is not worth getting too upset about. Their main purpose is to get the Minister to justify why he has set down the two-day period.

Kim Howells: We have moved on to the part of the Bill that deals with clubs. The Government recognise that there is much to be valued in this country's club movement. Different considerations arise in relation to clubs, which are private premises to which public access is restricted. That is why they are treated separately from pubs, bars and other licensed premises; that is why the supply of alcohol for consumption by members and guests on premises for which a club premises certificate is in force are subject to a different regime with lighter controls.
 The clause sets out five conditions that a club must satisfy to be a qualifying club and be eligible for a club premises certificate. It is important that the conditions are strong enough to enable a clear distinction to be drawn between bona fide members clubs and commercial undertakings. The hon. Gentleman is hedging around that simple question. 
 The first condition in subsection (2) is that 
''under the rules of the club persons may not . . . be admitted to membership, or . . . as candidates for membership, to any of the privileges of membership, without an interval of at least two days between their nomination and or application . . . and their admission.''
 As the hon. Gentleman told us, that has been the case since 1964 and it has been that way for as long as I can remember.

Mark Field: On gaming, there has classically been a 24-hour rule, although I appreciate that that is all subject to review and that we are dealing with a different regime. Will the Government try to introduce some consistency? The 48-hour time limit is arbitrary, whether or not it is sensible, whereas the 24-hour rule has been the norm for joining large-scale gaming and gambling clubs. What is the rationale behind maintaining the 48-hour limit, rather than increasing it to 96 hours, as suggested in one amendment, or reducing it to 24 hours, which is common in casinos in central London?

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the Committee that we are reviewing gaming and gambling law with a view to introducing some radical changes soon. Under the proposed gambling reforms,
 bingo clubs and casinos that hold operator's licences and specialised forms of premises licences would no longer be subject to a 24 or 48-hour rule. However, non-profit-making members clubs, such as those that would hold club premises certificates under what will become the Licensing Act, would enjoy certain exemptions relating to lower levels of gambling and prizes, as long as the 48-hour rule on membership, among other things, is applied. There is nothing inconsistent about the two policies: both offer forms of privilege and exemption, subject to certain qualifying conditions and both have the 48-hour rule in common. Nevertheless, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to the fact that there are some big changes in the offing for gaming and gambling.
 Under clause 62(5) the fourth general condition that must be satisfied in order for a club to meet the criteria for qualifying club activities is that it must have at least 25 members. Amendment No. 235—

Joe Benton: Order. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with the next group of amendments.

Kim Howells: I have here amendments Nos. 302, 235, 316, 203 and 317.

Joe Benton: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to No. 204, which is the next amendment.

Kim Howells: I am sorry, Mr. Benton, I need some guidance. I thought we were considering clause 62, amendments Nos. 302, 235, 316, 203 and 317.

Joe Benton: Order. That is correct. I do not know whether I added to the confusion by mentioning amendment No. 204 at the outset, which I should not have done. That will be the next sequence of business.

Kim Howells: Would it be in order for me to deal with amendment No. 235?

Joe Benton: Yes.

Kim Howells: Thank you, Mr. Benton—a great mist descended then.
 Amendment No. 235 would replace the requirement of at least two days' notice between nomination or application for membership and admission with one of 48 hours. The interval of two days has not been plucked from the air. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) reminded us, it has been carried over from the present law as set out in section 41 of the Licensing Act 1964. The amendment would substitute a minimum delay of 48 hours for the two days that the law requires at present. The hon. Gentleman's amendment does not mention 48 working hours. It merely states ''48 hours'', which has nothing to do with the hours that the licensing authority may be working. The two days in the Bill is about the period of notice that an applicant must give before being admitted to membership and a licensing authority is not involved in that. 
 On the face of it, this might seem a fairly harmless adjustment, but we take the view that it is important not to weaken or undermine the distinction between bona fide clubs and others. The two-day test in the 
 present law is well established, and we are not persuaded that a compelling case has been made for disturbing it. In our view, the additional inconvenience of a two-day interval is a reasonable price to pay for maintaining an important legal distinction. 
 I now turn to amendments Nos. 302 and 316. There may be a case for the Opposition Members to put their heads together and—as I tried to express as gently as I could—make up their minds about whether they want two days, 48 hours or four days. Amendment No. 316 would do completely the opposite of any of those options, by reducing the period to one day. I am sure that if the Committee had a clear idea of what the Opposition wanted, we could be a bit more helpful—but I fear that the arguments would be the same. Two days reflects the existing position; it is fair and reasonable and offers the necessary degree of protection to all concerned. 
 Amendment No. 203 would make it clear that the rules of a club may prohibit a person from becoming a member of it without prior nomination or application. However, it would leave unaltered the position currently established by subsection (3) that if the rules of the club allow a person to become a member without prior nomination or application, those rules must also provide that such an individual may not be admitted to the privileges of membership without an interval of at least two days between their becoming a member and their being admitted. That period would be reduced to one day by amendment No. 317, which we must resist on grounds similar to those on which we resist amendments Nos. 302 and 306. Therefore, amendment No. 203 would not have any material effect on the provisions of the Bill, and it is unnecessary. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents a club's rules from prohibiting someone from becoming a member without prior nomination or application; that is a matter for the club. 
 I assure the Committee that in this respect the Bill reflects the provisions of the current legislation on registered clubs, so no difficulty should be caused for clubs that currently operate satisfactorily. I hope that after those reassurances, this group of amendments will not be pressed.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. I prefaced my remarks by saying that there had been some confusion, and I apologise to the Committee for that.
 Amendment No. 203 is still hanging up there, because the Minister did not shoot it down in flames. He said that it would help clubs whose rules say categorically that a prior application and nomination is needed before someone can become a member. The current wording of the Bill, which is lifted from the Licensing Act 1964, simply causes difficulty for clubs that insist on prior application and nomination, because they then have to write in if, for whatever reason, someone comes along and gets signed up on the night—and such people still have to wait two days before they can have a drink. 
 The wording of amendment No. 203 would add to the Bill: it would not detract from it, but would clarify the situation and help clubs that have in their statutes 
 a requirement for prior application and nomination, which is the proper way to do things. As for preventing any abuse of the system—for example, people simply walking in, signing up and having a drink at the bar—to insist on prior nomination and application on the form provided by the club would be more watertight than what is in the 1964 Act, which the Minister wants to include verbatim in the Bill. As he said some kind words about amendment No. 203, perhaps he could ease a little towards our position by examining our suggestion further, with a view to including it.

Kim Howells: I always examine with meticulous care the suggestions offered by the hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly do so in this case.

Malcolm Moss: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 204, in
clause 62, page 36, leave out line 18.
 The amendment would simply delete clause 62(5), which states: 
''Condition 4 is that the club has at least 25 members.''
 The amendment would prevent clubs with fewer than 25 members from being at a disadvantage. If such a club wishes to acquire a premises licence, why should it be prevented from doing so? What is magic about the number 25? Surely it is for the club to decide what its membership should be on the basis of its financial situation, and clause 62(5) is needless. 
 I am aware that there is a limit of 25 members in existing legislation, but there must be a number of small clubs in villages—for example, bowls clubs—that would find that difficult to reach. Even the Ramsgate croquet club—to mention another distinguished club—might find it difficult to reach the limit, and if a club does not have 25 members, it cannot register as a club and enjoy the accompanying benefits. Ramsgate club would not be allowed a licence, so it might be entertained by the bigger Margate croquet club, which was mentioned this morning, and which could have a bar and be able to offer drinks, but it would not be able to reciprocate. Why is there an arbitrary limit of 25?

Andrew Turner: Could it be that the Government did not intend such a small, unincorporated association or club to be licensed at all?

Malcolm Moss: That could be a better plan, but I do not suppose that the Government will want to go down that road either.
 The amendment would help smaller clubs, of which there are many throughout the country. Under the Bill, no club with fewer than 25 members can apply for a bar licence and serve drinks after a game, and that is an unnecessary restriction, bearing in mind that many such clubs would not cause any problems for the police or the local community. In any event, with such small numbers involved there is unlikely ever to be any cause for concern.

Kim Howells: I remind the Committee that the reason why the Bill preserves the special arrangements
 for clubs and does not require them to obtain a full premises licence, as other establishments must do, is because they have a special role to play in the community. The minimum membership requirement also recognises that community role. Without it, there would be nothing to stop a small number of people circumventing the normal requirements of licensing law, and setting themselves up as a qualified club. Clubs with fewer than 25 members can be recognised clubs, and apply for a premises licence—

Malcolm Moss: At an even greater cost to the small club.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend made the point that I was about to make. We are in danger of imposing a greater regulatory burden on smaller clubs than on larger clubs.

Martin Linton: Conservative clubs, perhaps.

Kim Howells: That is a cruel remark, although I know that in Wales and Scotland, for example, the membership of Conservative clubs has shrunk dramatically. In fact, to depart from the script for a moment, I must say that I was 19 years old before I discovered that the ''Con club'' in Hirwaun was really the Conservative club. I thought that it was something to do with snooker, because it had the two best tables in the valley. I never met a Conservative until I was well into adolescence. Even now, the Hirwaun Conservative club has at least 25 members.
 I do not recognise the description of the struggling clubs. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire about the ubiquitous Ramsgate croquet club, but I must undertake some research to find out whether it exists. I am sure that it does, but the minimum membership of 25 people also reflects the provisions for registered clubs under the 1964 Act, and they seem to work perfectly well.

Malcolm Moss: Let us take a hypothetical case of a club with 25 members. It would fulfil the requirements of clause 62(5) and, as the Minister said, it would be entitled to the benefits that qualifying clubs would receive under the Bill. Let us say that the club has a bar and a licence under the club provision. What would happen if one of its members dropped dead? It would then have only 24 members. Does all activity cease? Will the bar have to close down? The club would probably whip someone in off the street and sign him up. The other members would be able to drink, but the guy who had just signed up would not be able to do so for two days. Such matters are worth thinking about.

Kim Howells: That would have to happen the day before the club applied to be a qualifying club, and the hon. Gentleman knows that such incidents would rarely occur. I am reliably informed that the Bill gives the club a three-month period of grace. If a club with only 25 members, one of whom has suddenly dropped dead, cannot attract another member within three months, it really is on its last legs. The rest of the membership could be in danger of dropping dead, too.

Bob Blizzard: I can cite the example of another sort of Con club in Lowestoft, which I visited for the first time on Saturday night—the Constitutional Club. It is a most select and private club with 30 members, and it has realised that if its membership went much below 30, it would be difficult to continue anyway. Twenty-five is a good figure for membership; it is fair to say that it would apply to any club that was to remain in existence.

Kim Howells: I agree, and I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire withdraws his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am reassured by the Minister's saying that the Bill will enable a club to continue for three months if it does not reach the membership requirement. There may be other requirements, but I have not found such a provision.

Kim Howells: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that he will find the provision in clause 88.

Malcolm Moss: I am most grateful to the Minister. In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 - Determining whether a club is established

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 318, in
clause 63, page 36, leave out line 26.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 303, in
clause 63, page 36, leave out line 36.

Mark Hoban: I thought that I would break with tradition and move this amendment myself. These are both probing amendments intended to allow us to consider what is meant by whether a club is
''established and conducted in good faith''.
 Clearly, the clause is important for determining whether an organisation is declared to be a bona fide club. 
 Amendment No. 318 relates to subsection (2)(a), which refers to any arrangements that have to do with 
''the club's freedom of purchase of alcohol''.
 What impact will that provision have on a licensing authority that is considering a club's arrangements for the purchase of alcohol from a brewery? I am well aware that some clubs have an agreement that requires them to take a certain amount of beer from a particular brewer. Quite often, that agreement is tied to the provision of a loan from the brewery to the club, perhaps to refurbish premises or provide working capital. 
 When I was a student, the bar in our hall of residence was funded by one of the brewers—I think that it was Samuel Smith's—which provided a generous loan to refurbish it. I am not quite sure what the outcome of that refurbishment was, as the 
 bar still looked pretty basic to me. However, the money had been supplied, and I am sure that we were all very grateful to the company for supplying it. Student unions are not the only such clubs. The Fareham Conservative club had a similar arrangement with a local brewer. 
 It is important for those of us seeking to interpret subsection (2)(a) that the Government help us to understand how important the arrangements are, and to what extent the closeness of the tie between the club and the brewery means that the club is no longer 
''established and conducted in good faith''.
 Amendment No. 303 refers to subsection (2)(e), and raises questions about the nature of the premises of the club. When my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire spoke in the stand part debate on clause 61, he referred to the Caravan Club, which clearly felt that the fields where it held its caravan rallies would be appropriate premises for the purposes of clause 63. I am not sure that that is the case. However, what is it about the nature of the premises of a club that will determine whether the club is 
''established and conducted in good faith''?
 I have been to sports clubs—at least, they would probably fall into the category of clubs—where the premises were very basic, and there was not much to them. Equally, I have been to clubs that are much more lavish and well appointed, and there are a range of clubs in between. 
 It is important that the local authorities taking on responsibilities as licensing authorities under the Bill, and the club operators and their lawyers, understand what is meant by paragraphs (a) and (e).

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the amendments. As has already been said, we believe that there is much that is worthy of preservation and encouragement in this country's club movement. Different considerations arise in relation to clubs, which, as I have said, are private premises to which public access is restricted. That is why they are treated separately from pubs, bars and other licensed premises, and why the supply of alcohol for consumption by members and members' guests, on premises for which a club premises certificate is in force, are subject to a different regime, with lighter controls.
 Unfortunately, the very fact that the controls are lighter makes the special arrangements for clubs—both those operating under the current system and those that will operate under the Bill—a potentially attractive option for unscrupulous people who wish to circumvent licensing controls. That is why clause 63 sets out the matters that may be taken into account by the licensing authority when determining whether a club is established and conducted in good faith for the purposes of the Bill. Two of those matters are any arrangements restricting the club's freedom of purchase of alcohol, and the nature of the premises occupied by the club. 
 Amendment No. 318 would remove the licensing authority's ability to take into account any arrangements restricting the freedom of the club to 
 purchase alcohol when determining whether it is conducted in good faith. Amendment No. 303 would remove the licensing authority's ability to take into account the nature of the premises occupied by the club when determining whether it was conducted in good faith. The amendments concern measures that reflect provisions in the Licensing Act 1964 that prevent unscrupulous individuals from circumventing the licensing laws altogether, or seeking to pervert them for their own monetary gains. We have decided, entirely justifiably, to maintain those provisions in the new regime, notwithstanding the special arrangements that we have made for clubs. 
 It is right that licensing authorities should be able to take into account any arrangements, usually arising from the rules of the club, that restrict its freedom to purchase alcohol. An example of such an arrangement would be where alcohol can be purchased only through a specified individual. He or she may have used inappropriate influence to gain that position, perhaps over a number of years, and might, furthermore, use that position for financial advantage. The scrutiny of any such arrangements by the licensing authority offers a workable safeguard against such malpractice. I hope that after that reassurance, amendment No. 318 will be withdrawn. 
 It is right that the licensing authority should be able to take into account the nature of a premises when determining whether a club is conducted in good faith. Again, that arises from problems that were identified and addressed by the Licensing Act 1964, whereby accommodation that would normally be associated with the provision of a justice's on-licence was being claimed as constituting club premises. The measure is designed to prevent an individual or a group from forming a committee and claiming that the premises were used for qualifying club activities, when in reality it was used for sales to the public. We think it right that that safeguard should be continued, and I hope that the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) will have the confidence not to press amendment No. 303.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply on those amendments. On his response to amendment No. 318, I can understand his argument about one person who may have used unscrupulous methods to acquire the right to supply alcohol to a club. However, if that is one extreme of the scale, compared with having completely free arrangements for the supply of alcohol, I am not sure where on that scale some of the existing arrangements with brewers sit. How concerned should a licensing authority be about the nature of tied, or close, arrangements between a brewer and a club?
 Perhaps licensing authorities need to be provided with some more guidance on how to analyse such relationships to see whether an agreement to buy a certain amount of beer per year, for example, is a legitimate commercial arrangement that serves the interests of the club and its members, or whether it precludes them from benefiting and creates an unpleasant or difficult relationship between the brewery and the club. Perhaps some guidance needs to be issued to licensing authorities to help them to decide. On that basis, and subject to the reservation 
 mentioned, I shall be happy to withdraw amendment No. 318. 
 On amendment No. 303, the Minister raised a concern about the use of premises for what amounted to the sale of alcohol to the public. However, the condition in clause 62 would prevent easy sale of alcohol to the public, because there is a two-day period between people applying to join a club and being able to buy alcohol there. That will slow down the process and make it more difficult for premises to be used simply for the sale of alcohol to members of the public who come in from the streets to take advantage of some of the benefits that clubs may offer. Having said that, I understand the point that the Minister made about control of premises, but at a time when we are encouraging more public involvement in the licensing process, I wonder whether some of those arguments may be used to prevent the granting of a licence to new clubs. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 319, in
clause 63, page 36, line 39, at end add— 
 '(4) In the event that a notice is issued as a consequence of a decision in subsection (3), the club can appeal to the magistrates under section 178.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 320, in 
schedule 5, page 122, line 25, at end insert— 
 'Determination that a club is established and conducted in good faith 
 9A Where under section 63(3) it is determined that a club is not established and conducted in good faith, an appeal may be made to local magistrates.'.

Mark Hoban: To follow on from the Minister's comments about the importance of the matters in subsection (2) that a licensing authority may consider when ensuring that a club has been established and conducted in good faith, the licensing authority is required to issue a notice to a club if it does not meet the conditions set out in clause 63, but I cannot see in the Bill a right of appeal from the club to magistrates to enable it to dispute the licensing authority's findings as to the way in which the club has been established and conducted. I hope that there is provision in the Bill to enable licensing authorities to be challenged in a magistrates court so that any issues raised by a licensing authority about the way in which a club has been established and conducted can be properly aired.

Kim Howells: I wonder whether I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that at this stage I am not persuaded that an appeal to magistrates is necessary, and that the Joint Committee on Human Rights did not see fit to comment on that aspect. However, the hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point and I am prepared to look again at the matter and, if necessary, return with an appropriate amendment on Report.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful for the Minister's comments, and take note of what he said. It is important that clubs be given a right of appeal when appropriate. However, given the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: When I was looking at the White Paper and the guidance on clause 63, I came across the following words in paragraph 101 on page 42 of the White Paper:
''The law relating to registered clubs once again exhibits unnecessary complexity, using many terms that are imprecise. For example, 'good faith' is an unclear way of setting standards of behaviour and propriety that should be required of clubs and their members. Another example is that members' guests may be supplied with alcohol on the premises in a variety of circumstances, but there is no clear statutory definition of the term 'guest'.''
 Clause 63 deals with the establishment and conduct of a club in good faith, and I wonder whether the Minister seriously believes that the clause meets the laudable requirements set out in the White Paper, which states that such matters are difficult to define. One is left with the thought that the question may not have been addressed appropriately. 
 Chapter 10.8 of the guidance sets out the qualifying conditions of clauses 61 and 62 and goes on to say: 
''Section 63 sets out additional qualifying conditions which apply solely to clubs intending to supply alcohol to members and guests. The full details in respect of these sections of the Act are reproduced in Annex [ ]''
 The annex is still to be decided, so here we are, yet again, reaching a stage in the Bill where the accurate guidance that we ought to have in Committee to make sure that we are scrutinising this legislation at the most appropriate level is still not available. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why the guidance has taken so long and why, unless it has been supplied and we have not been sent a copy, the annexe to the guidance still states that the statutory qualifying conditions for clubs are to be agreed. 
 I should have thought that there had been sufficient time for those matters to have been sorted out between the various parties, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to tell us the stage that he has reached with the clubs in discussing the matters that relate specifically to clause 63.

Kim Howells: As we have just debated, whether a club is established and conducted in good faith is one of the general conditions that it must satisfy if it is to be a qualifying club in relation to any of the qualifying club activities. Clause 63 sets out the matters to be considered in determining that. Those matters include restrictions on a club's freedom to purchase alcohol, how money and property belonging to the club is used, giving members information about the club's finances, the accounts of the club and the nature of its premises. If a licensing authority determines that a club does not satisfy those conditions, it must notify the club accordingly to give the reasons for its decision.
 Clause 63 replicates current licensing law in laying down rules and conditions for qualifying clubs. It is designed to prevent abuse of the special system that the Bill provides in recognition of the special status and contribution of the club movement, which we have been debating. 
 The annexes will set out the qualifying conditions in the Bill, but they cannot be completed until it completes its parliamentary procedures, which is why we have to use shorthand in the interim. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 - The additional conditions for

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 304, in
clause 64, page 37, line 13, leave out subsection (4).
 Amendment No. 304 would take out subsection (4) and is a probing amendment. As it stands, subsection (4) would prevent any individual from deriving financial benefit from the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of club members or guests with the exceptions of 
''any benefit accruing to the club as a whole, or any benefit which a person derives indirectly by reason of the supply giving rise or contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the club.''
 Exactly what or who is that designed to protect? In an earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, the Minister said that there might be individuals out there who could profit by supplying a club. If a club committee deemed that it was getting a good deal in its own right that benefited its members, it is unreasonable and unnecessary that under this legislation the individual or individuals who might be supplying the club should not be able to do so. The onus is on the club and the club's committee to ensure that it runs a proper and efficient club for its members. As we know from annual general meetings, if committee members have not pulled their weight and done their work, those who will happily take on that mantle replace them. It should be entirely up to the club to decide whether any individual or group should benefit from supplying alcohol. 
 Many clubs have a bar steward who lives on and looks after the premises. They receive payment and may be said to profit from the sale of alcohol. In many cases, there may be a link between the profits of the club and the remuneration of that individual. Does that fall foul of clause 64(4)? Are such arrangements illegal, or will they be illegal under the Bill? Answers to those questions would be helpful.

Kim Howells: Clause 64 sets out the additional conditions that a qualifying club must satisfy for the supply of alcohol. Additional condition 3, which is set out in subsection (4), is that
''no arrangements are, or are intended to be, made for any person directly or indirectly to derive any pecuniary benefit from the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of the club to members or guests, apart from—
(a) any benefit accruing to the club as a whole, or
(b) any benefit which a person derives indirectly by reason of the supply giving rise or contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the club.''
 Amendment No. 304 would undermine completely the basis for distinguishing between the use of licensed premises and qualifying club premises. A key reason for preserving the special position of the club movement is the way alcohol is supplied to members of clubs. The critical point is that they club together to purchase the stock. They do not purchase alcohol from the club—as members, they already own it—but it is supplied to them by or on behalf of the club. It is true that money changes hands, but that is to ensure equity among members in the distribution of the alcohol that has been purchased for club use. I shall give an example to make that clear. The procedures are designed to be fair to Joe, who drinks six pints a week, and Harry, who drinks 10. Obviously, they are both moderate drinkers. No profit is made by anyone involved in the supply. 
 Amendment No. 304 would allow a profit to be made and would render a qualifying club indistinguishable from a commercial entity applying for a licence in respect of any premises such as, for example, a pub or a nightclub. It would remove entirely the justification for special treatment under the Bill. It would allow anyone to set up as a proprietary club and to benefit from the lighter controls that apply to qualifying not-for-profit clubs, from which they benefit as a result of their special nature. The amendment would allow clubs to sell alcohol without a personal licence holder or designated premises supervisor. They would be in direct competition with pubs and other licensed premises, from which they would be more or less indistinguishable. 
 The condition that prevents an individual from making a profit from the supply of alcohol is a key safeguard for local residents, protects the industry from unfair competition and, critically, provides a basis for the preservation and continuation of the special status of not-for-profit qualifying clubs. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I am concerned by the Minister's response to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. If I give an illustration, perhaps the Minister will tell me whether I again have the wrong end of the stick.
 A club has a steward and its members own the alcohol. The steward enjoys a bonus, depending on lettings of club premises, some of which may be for dominoes matches or private dinners. [Interruption.] I was not going to suggest such an activity. At some of those gatherings, alcohol may be served. Is that ruled out by subsection (4)? 
 Additionally, there may be an arrangement whereby even without any such lettings—where only members are concerned—the steward gains pecuniary advantage depending on the volume of alcohol sold. Most clubs recognise that one of the ways they can build up their facilities and improve the service that they offer to members is to make a profit from the sale of alcohol. Perhaps it was even the profit from the sale of alcohol that enabled the Conservative club to which 
 the Minister referred to furnish the use of snooker facilities for those who may not even have been Conservatives. It is reasonable to reward a steward for that sort of benefit, which derives from increasing the volume of sales, but that appears to be ruled out under subsection (4). Have I got that wrong?

Kim Howells: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.
 I meant to answer the questions of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire about bar stewards, who profit from their labour via their employment by the club and not from the supply of alcohol per se. The club may enter into some arrangement with the steward about bonuses, but that is not what is being dealt with. The Bill does not prevent a club from employing a bar steward and the contracts between clubs and bar stewards are many and various. There was a time—I am sure that this is no longer the case—when the great problem with bar stewards was making sure that they did not run off in January with the takings and the barmaid. We lost quite a few in south Wales at one time—not, as far as I can remember, from the Con. club in Hirwaun—I cannot remember whether it was the Constitutional club or the Conservative club and I do not want to get the title wrong.

Andrew Turner: Does the Minister accept that Constitutional club is a term that is often used by Conservative clubs that may wish, for reasons best known to those in the locality, to conceal their exact political affiliation?

Kim Howells: In the case of Hirwaun, it was a thin disguise.

Mark Hoban: I am sorry to prolong procedures. I want to return to one of the benefits of joining a club: getting some mutual benefit from membership. Someone might identify a person who could acquire on their behalf beer at a cheaper price—many people join clubs for cheaper beer as well for fellowship and comradeship—and the club committee might decide to split the saving between the person who found the source of cheaper alcohol and the club members. That would be precluded under the Bill.
 On the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about relationships between the steward and the club and its members, the explanatory notes state: 
''nobody should receive at the expense of the club a commission or percentage deriving from purchase of alcohol''.
 A steward might increase alcohol sales and be rewarded on a commission basis for that increase. Based on the explanatory notes, it appears that that sort of arrangement, as opposed to a pure bonus arrangement, would be outlawed by subsection (4). My hon. Friend's amendment would resolve two or three of the problems associated with the way in which subsection (4) could operate in practice. It would simply eliminate the subsection. Furthermore, if it were demonstrated that a club was being conducted, and had been established in the first place in good faith, why would the additional condition be needed? 
 Clearly, the club would have demonstrated to the licensing authority that it was well run, for the benefit of members and not the committee or others.

Kim Howells: I have nothing to add beyond the explanation that I gave and clearly I did not convince the hon. Gentleman.
 I could add a little extra in response to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, who talked about the letting out of club premises. If a club hired out its premises for licensable activities other than qualifying club activities—the hon. Gentleman listed some possible ones—a premises licence would be required, which is different from the qualifying club permission. Use of premises under the authority of the premises licence does not carry a condition relating to profit, so the situation would be different.

Malcolm Moss: I am still not convinced by the Minister's argument. He said that it was all right to pay stewards a bonus. He did not rule out whether that bonus was tied—as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham implied—to the volume of alcohol supplied because technically it is not sold in a club but supplied across the counter. The more that is supplied, the more there is a margin of profit for the club that it could reinvest in its premises: its pool tables and so on. Most clubs need good alcohol sales to render their clubs successful and make them dynamic entities. It is their main source of income.
 The Minister has not ruled out any correlation between a steward's bonus and the volume of alcohol sales that may go through that club in any given year. Re-reading subsection (3), the key words seem to be the last three at the end: ''by the club''. It refers to purchases of alcohol by the club, not in the club or by club members. There is a Chinese wall between the club on one side and whatever takes place within those walls, and what happens outside in the commercial sense that alcohol is purchased by the club in the first place. The clause says that no person may benefit and I do not understand that.

Kim Howells: The matter centres on the business of the steward and his relationship with the club. If the individual involved is a member of a club, he or she could not profit from the supply of alcohol in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The savings could be put back into the club as a whole, but that is different.

Malcolm Moss: Yes, that is different. I see that the Minister has some more information that may be the answer to the second question that I put to him, relating to the words ''by the club'', the Chinese wall, and the movement of the purchase of alcohol by the club from an individual. The clause seems to be saying that if the individual supplying the alcohol outside the club happens to be a member that cannot take place because the alcohol has been purchased by the club not within it.

Kim Howells: The committee that runs the club will have a policy about the purchase of alcohol. The bar steward is an employee and he or she is not in a position to influence club policy on the supply of
 alcohol. A member can seek election to the committee and if that person made some private profit out of such action that would constitute the difference to which I alluded. That is what the hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand. The steward can be an employee and may be a member of the club. If he is a member of the club, that would cast a different light on the issue.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for making another attempt to clarify the question. I am not convinced that even now I understand exactly what he is getting at, but that might be due to the time of day and my own difficulties. We may return to the matter at a later stage, but in the mean time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 206, in
clause 64, page 37, line 20, at end insert— 
 '(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) a committee shall be deemed to be elected by members of the club if it is a subcommittee appointed by and from the club's main committee without any co-opted members, provided that a person who is co-opted to fill a casual vacancy as a substitute in place of an elected member (or in place of any such substitute) for the remainder of the term of that elected member, and no longer, shall be deemed to be elected.'.{**w43**} 
The amendment is lengthy. It would clear up an implication in the clause that it may be necessary directly to elect a committee to deal with the supply of alcohol for club premises. That is not consistent with usual practice whereby one primary committee is directly elected, often at an annual general meeting, and the powers are delegated to a group or sub-committee dealing with alcohol matters. It is not usually the case that more than one committee need be directly elected by the club or society's membership. Not only does that defy the Government's assertions that the Bill provides flexibility and accountability for the bodies concerned, it would also require much amending and changing of club constitutions throughout the country. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister has had representations from clubs on the implications of the relevant subsection of the clause. 
 Our amendment would uphold the provisions established under schedule 7 of the 1964 Act and would prevent additional complication for club members. It would also maintain the provision that members of any sub-committee are subject to the age restriction of 18 years of age.

Kim Howells: The clause provides that additional conditions to those set out in clause 62 must be satisfied if the club is to supply alcohol to its members or their guests. The first condition in subsection (2) is that
''the purchase of alcohol for the club, and the supply of alcohol by the club, are managed by a committee whose members . . . are members of the club'',
 are at least 18 years old and 
''are elected by the members of the club.''
 Amendment No. 206 would provide that under subsection (2) a committee would be deemed to be elected by club members if it were a sub-committee appointed by and from the club's main committee without any co-opted members. A person co-opted to 
 fill a casual vacancy as a substitute in place of an elected member, or in place of any such substitute, for the remainder of the term of the elected member and no longer would be deemed elected. The amendment would allow non-elected members to be part of the committee managing the purchase and supply of alcohol. 
 The amendment is unnecessary. Nothing in the Bill would prevent the committee responsible for managing the purchase and supply of alcohol from delegating its work to sub-committees or non-elected members, depending on anything in the rules of the club that might control such delegation and provided that the elected committee was still managing the purchase and supply of alcohol. The important principle that must be maintained is that the committee, which is elected by members, has ultimate responsibility for such issues. 
 If the amendment is an honest attempt to allow for sensible working practices in clubs, I can assure the Committee that it is not needed. If it is an attempt to allow the elected committee to offload its responsibilities on unelected members, it is unacceptable. Either way, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 206 adds constructively to the Bill. It clearly sets out the options available to the club committee on dealing with the requirements in the clause. I see no reason why that should complicate the situation; in fact, it clarifies it and I am surprised that the Minister does not see fit to take it on board. It is meant to be constructive. It enables clubs to set up sub-committees and to co-opt people on to them in an appropriate way, so that there is always a body that is deemed to be responsible for the provision or supply of alcohol by the club.
 We are not in any way affecting the requirements of subsection (2) that the committee's members, 
''(a) are members of the club;
(b) have attained the age of 18 years; and
(c) are elected by the members of the club.''
 I see no reason why the amendment should be rejected because it clarifies what could be achieved. Unless the Minister can give me some more assurances, I will press the amendment to a Division. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 - Industrial and provident societies, friendly societies etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: I was surprised to find that clause 65 forms part of this Bill because my perception of industrial and provident societies and friendly societies was that they tend to be savings entities or other societies that are set up for the mutual financial benefit of their members. I think that I am right in saying that certain health insurers are set up as friendly societies and that friendly societies have particular tax benefits that arise based on the savings vehicles that they operate, which offer a good product for people on low incomes. Having understood that that was the background of those societies, it came as a surprise to me to see provisions in the Bill to cover the operation by them of clubs in the sense that we discussed with regard to earlier sections of the Bill.
 I wish to understand why these organisations are allowed to operate such clubs. Is there not a risk that by operating clubs they might start to become more commercial ventures than they are at present? BUPA is a provident society: would we find it acceptable if it operated a club on the premises of one of its hospitals or nursing homes? Is that really what we are allowing them to do under this part of the Bill? I would be grateful if the Minister would give some clarification about the extent to which this clause is likely to be used by existing clubs or societies.

Kim Howells: I missed that adjective.

Mark Hoban: I am unsure which adjective the Minister missed. I wish him to say how many existing clubs would use these provisions because it seems strange that they are included in the Bill, and to comment on how different the controls would need to be over those activities for them to be satisfactory in the context of a licensing authority looking at the operation of such entities.
 Are we opening the floodgates? Many offices have been set up for, for example, the Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society, which used to be an industrial provident society, or for the Oddfellows or the Buffaloes—for a whole host of those little societies with offices up and down the country in small towns. Were they properly to constitute themselves, each could now open up a club. Their members might welcome that—I do not know. That might attract more members. The societies might see it as a valuable way of extending the services that they offer to their communities if they could open up qualifying clubs and sell low-cost financial services products at the same time. That might cause a change in the way in which such services are sold that would excite the Chancellor and the Financial Services Authority. 
 It is an odd situation if financial institutions there to help the low-paid can also operate clubs that will relieve them of their savings premiums, which will be spent on beer instead. Perhaps the Minister can take the opportunity to clarify why this measure has been included and whether it will be used in practice.

Malcolm Moss: As I understand it, clause 65 is lifted, perhaps verbatim, from the Licensing Act 1964. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether it is the same, word for word. I suspect that clause 66 is of much the same ilk. Most clubs that come under this part of the Bill are non-profit-making clubs, which is why they enjoy such benefits, but why do some—those identified in clause 65—apparently not have to fulfil the requirements placed on other non-profit-making clubs? Is there something special about them? They are, in some cases, charitable institutions and registered under various other Acts of Parliament. Does that confer upon them the ability to run a club that involves the sale of alcohol and provision of entertainment better or more wisely than any other group of people who come together to form a non-profit-making club? It seems that, because the measure was in earlier legislation and there was no input from anyone to say that it was working badly or inappropriately or was conferring special privileges, the Government just decided to lob it in here. That is not a real justification for keeping it.

Kim Howells: May I help the hon. Gentleman and save him a little time? Are he and his hon. Friends saying that we should prevent industrial and provident societies and friendly societies from setting themselves up as clubs that can sell alcohol if they so choose, as they do now?

Malcolm Moss: No, I am not saying that at all. If I am going down the wrong road, the Minister will no doubt bring me back into line, but my interpretation is that if such societies choose to set up clubs, they will not necessarily have to abide by all the regulations and requirements placed on other non-profit-making clubs. That enables them to duck some of the requirements and responsibilities set down in the legislation for other non-profit-making clubs. If I am wrong in that interpretation, I should be more than grateful if the Minister put me right.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friends have put their finger on an important point. Why is that particular category of club specified in the Bill at all? The Minister, intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, suggested that if we removed the clause we would be preventing those societies from running clubs. I see no such possibility. The Bill permits both incorporated and unincorporated associations, formed for whatever purpose, to apply for club certificates. The removal of clause 65 would not prevent the people who form those societies and who are members of them from forming a club on club premises in exactly the same way as, for example, Shanklin Conservative club.
 My hon. Friend asked whether there are exemptions accruing to organisations covered by clause 65 from the generality of the conditions set out in clauses 62, 63 and 64. If there are no such exemptions, I see no need for that particular clause. 
 I should like to ask the Minister why, if there is no difference in the conditions, he has not felt it necessary to refer in the Bill to, for example, student unions. Perhaps student unions are not voluntary 
 organisations but they are organisations in which people can come together. In many cases they provide cheap beer and snooker, and sometimes even barmaids; they provide exactly the same opportunities as the Con club to which the Minister referred. Why is it that industrial and provident societies are referred to in the Bill and student unions are not?

Kim Howells: I will be brief because we have had a comprehensive debate. [Hon. Members: ''No.''] We certainly have, considering what we have been debating. The clause provides for registered industrial and provident societies and registered and incorporated friendly societies to be treated for the purpose of the Bill as satisfying some of the conditions of being a qualifying club, provided that certain requirements relating to their constitution and management are met. The clause makes it possible for such organisations to apply for a club premises certificate. There are 22,000 registered members clubs under the Licensing Act 1964. Friendly societies and others have been included at the behest of the Committee of Registered Clubs Association, of which the Conservative club movement is a leading member.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister wants to move us on very quickly without answering some of the questions, and I am puzzled as to why. Subsection (5) makes it clear that a club that comes out of an incorporated friendly society automatically fulfils condition 3 in clause 62(4), condition 5 in clause 62(6) and the additional conditions in clause 64. No other club would appear to have those advantages, and it is down to the Minister to explain why friendly societies and those registered in various ways have that particular dispensation. I do not understand why and I should like the Minister to explain.

Mark Hoban: While the Minister consults the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), perhaps he will enlighten the Committee on how many of those 22,000 licensed clubs registered under the 1964 Act are industrial and provident societies and friendly societies. Would he be happy if some of the large friendly societies, which are large commercial operations, were to open a chain of clubs across the country to meet their members' needs? Further to that, will he define who the secretary of one of those organisations would be? The secretary crops up as an important person in, for example, supplying licensing authorities with notices.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 - Miners' welfare institutes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: I am uniquely qualified among those on this side of the Committee to raise the issue of miners' welfare institutes because I am probably the only hon. Member, at least among Conservatives, who is the son of a former miner.
 I wonder whether the provision has just been lifted wholesale from the 1964 Act, without taking advantage of the opportunity to update some of the wording to reflect the current state of mining communities. It is interesting that subsection (5)(c)(i) refers to committees or boards consisting 
''partly of persons employed, or formerly employed, in or about coal mines'',
 whereas subsection (3) defines a miners' welfare institute as 
''an association organised for the social well-being and recreation of persons employed in or about coal mines''.
 That begs the question of why those who were formerly employed are on the committee, but I do not think that that line of questioning will be profitable or fruitful at this point. 
 I wonder why the Government did not take advantage of the legislation to broaden the definition of those who could be members of miners' welfare institutes by referring to those who were formerly employed, as well as those who are currently employed, thereby reflecting that in many coal-mining areas where such institutes are located there are few, if any, people who are employed in the mining industry.

Kim Howells: Clause 66 applies the arrangements for qualifying clubs to a relevant miners' welfare institute. While recognising certain differences, it allows the institute's premises and its enrolled membership to be treated as if it were a club like other working men's clubs. Furthermore, anything done by the institute's trustees or management is treated as if done on behalf of the club. That is in many ways a crucial difference.
 The Bill adopts the position of the Licensing Act 1964 in order to preserve the valuable tradition whereby miners' welfare institutes are treated like other clubs operating under club committees. Such institutes are enormously well regarded in their communities and are organised for the social well-being and recreation of persons employed, or formerly employed, in or about coal mines. As the hon. Member for Fareham knows, very few miners' institutes had bars until relatively recently. They were often forced, mainly in the late 1960s and 1970s, to incorporate bars or to begin to run bars. The coal mine closures during that time meant that the subscriptions to the institutes that had come directly from miners' wages were no longer being paid. As a consequence, the institutes had to find a way to generate alternative revenue. 
 The Bill sets down unique qualifying conditions for institutes because of their special nature. Two thirds of the institute's board or committee must include persons appointed or nominated, or appointed or elected from among persons nominated by one or more licensed operators within the meaning of the Coal Industry Act 1994, and persons appointed or nominated, or appointed or elected from among persons nominated by one or more organisations representing persons employed in or about coal mines. 
 If special circumstances apply to a particular institute and that is not possible, an alternative 
 condition applies. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter. The huge number of mine closures in the 1980s resulted in coal miners who were still quite young moving away from the villages during that shake-out and looking for jobs in other parts of the country. Under the alternative condition, at least two thirds of the committee or board must consist of persons employed or formerly employed in or about coal mines and persons appointed by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation or a body or person to whom the functions of the organisation have been transferred. The range of people is not limited to those who may have worked in the mine or even around the mine. I hope that that deals with some of the hon. Gentleman's questions. 
 A final condition is that the premises of the institute are held in trusts to which section 2 of the Recreational Charities Act 1958 applies. Those technical provisions are important. As the hon. Gentleman implied, they have been taken from the previous legislation so that those important institutions are not excluded from the privileges afforded to similar working men's clubs and their premises certificates. 
 I make it clear that many miners' welfare institutes function very well as clubs, have a healthy turnover and are active in their communities. I do not want to suggest—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to—that the decline of the coal industry has resulted in all those clubs being on their knees, because that is not so. Indeed, the committees and trustees of clubs have shown tremendous imagination and managerial expertise, often in association with progressive breweries, in turning those institutions into properties with excellent amenities for their communities. We should pay tribute to that.

Andrew Turner: I was interested to hear the exchange between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham because an opportunity may be being missed to draw on the experience of miners' welfare institutes, the details of which I was unaware. In some communities, commercial organisations, businesses, engineering firms and others run similar clubs and organisations for their staff and sometimes for former staff. In my constituency, the GKN Westland club was an example but, sadly, it closed down recently. However, as I understand it, the principal distinction between the institutions referred to in clause 66 and those referred to in clauses 62 to 64 is their government the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—and the fact that they are managed in part by the employers and in part by the members, employees or people acting on their behalf. That does not seem to be a system that is unique to miners' welfare institutes.

Kim Howells: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making and he is right because many other industries have their own version of miners' institutes, although elements of miners' institutes, because of the isolation of communities, are probably a little different. We are dealing not with
 other sectors of industry, but with the transfer of legislation that worked well for miners' institutes into the new legislation. We are not missing an opportunity for other industries; the clause simply deals with miners' institutes.

Andrew Turner: I accept that and I do not intend to detain the Committee much longer. I am merely concerned that the omission of an equivalent clause covering such constitutional arrangements in other clubs, taken alongside clause 64(2), prevents other clubs with similar constitutional arrangements from enjoying the benefits of club certificates.

Kim Howells: I do not believe that we are doing that.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67 - Associate members and their guests

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 205, in
clause 67, page 39, line 21, leave out from 'club' to end of line 22 and insert— 
 '(b) he has been a member of that other club for at least two days, and 
 (c) the club's committee or subcommittee responsible for the supply of alcohol is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the primary purpose of that other club is not the supply or purchase of alcohol.'.
 To prove that a visiting member is a member of a recognised club is pretty difficult. By the Department's own admission, it would rely on the secretary of the other club, probably more than anyone else, confirming that the club was indeed recognised. That in turn would require the certification that the relevant wording in clause 62 was included in its constitution. Furthermore, as we have discussed, the requirement that the club is conducted in good faith as a club can be determined only by the licensing authority, having regard to the terms of arrangements for the purchase of alcohol, the use of club money, property or profits to the benefit of anyone except the club 
''for charitable, benevolent or political purposes'',
 the proper keeping of accounts and the provision of financial information to members, and, of course, the nature of the club premises. All those things will already have been taken into account when the licensing authority deems that the club is being conducted in good faith. 
 Surely it would be much simpler to invoke the standard safeguard of the two-day interval between application and membership, which our revised paragraph (b) provides?

Kevan Jones: Is it not the case that in the CIU movement, in Conservative associations, and certainly in Labour clubs, guests go from club to club and have cards to prove that they are members of the overall organisation? If there is any unruly conduct on the part of the individual, disciplinary action can be taken by the members of their own club. Therefore, by restricting access to members of the CIU, Conservative associations or Labour clubs, people can move from club to club.

Malcolm Moss: I am not sure about that. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Such movement is perhaps facilitated by the arrangements that he mentioned, but we are attempting to make absolutely certain that the club at which visitors and guests are being entertained—if I may use that word—complies with the law set out in clause 67. Our suggested paragraph (c) would allow the host club more safely to admit a member of another club. The Bill would be clearer.

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to propose the amendment. It would delay the access of members of other clubs to social clubs. From a constituency point of view, many of the clubs in seaside towns in North Devon offer their facilities to people who are visiting resorts and are members of clubs elsewhere. Some people come only for a long weekend or a few days and if they had to wait for the two days proposed in the hon. Gentleman's amendment, half their holiday would be gone. Clubs allow members of other clubs simply to show another club card, be it from the National Union of Liberal Clubs, the CIU, or, heaven forfend, even from Conservative or Labour clubs—such people are simply allowed to brandish their cards and come in. That approach is preferable to the delay that is inherently built into the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Kim Howells: Clause 67 provides that references to guests of club members include associate members of the club and guests of associate members of the club and further provides that a person is an associate member of the club, for the purposes of the Bill, if,
''in accordance with the rules of the club, he is admitted to its premises as being a member of another club, and . . . that other club is a recognised club''.
 A recognised club is one that satisfies the first three conditions set out in clause 62, as we have agreed. 
 Amendment No. 205 would change the definition of ''associate member'', requiring that to qualify as such, a person would have to have been a member of the other club for at least two days and that the committee or sub-committee responsible for the supply of alcohol was satisfied that the primary purpose of that other club was not the supply or purchase of alcohol. The amendment would therefore prevent any member of a club whose primary purpose was the sale of alcohol from being an associate member of another club. 
 I am afraid that I am at a loss to understand the amendment's intention. Let me say once again that the expanded definition of ''guest'' for the purposes of part 4 of the Bill is not a backdoor through which a club can supply alcohol to its members without the need for a club premises certificate or a premises licence. A recognised club is not a guest. Under existing law, members of clubs are able to use associated clubs. As we have heard, a member of a miners' welfare institute in Wales can use another miners' welfare institute when visiting England if the rules of that institute permit that admittance. That seems sensible. It reflects the community role of such clubs and the fact that, traditionally, clubs knit together nationally, not only at local level. 
 The point that the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) made was important. I know for a fact that members of all manner of clubs, including railway clubs and many others, enjoy a pint when, for example, they visit a seaside resort by going into a club. Often, they feel that they are getting a better deal than they might get in another licensed premises, although that is not always the case. The amendment would prevent anyone who is a member of a club whose primary purpose is the sale of alcohol—which includes a great many registered clubs at present—from being treated as an associate member of another club. The Government do not agree that curtailment of the extent to which members of qualifying clubs can use the facilities of other, associated qualifying clubs is justified. Nor do they think it appropriate to prescribe the rules of a club in the Bill, except where that is necessary to impose a qualifying standard for clubs that wish to take advantage of its provisions. I can see no such necessity here. The scheme set out in the Bill reflects closely the position in existing legislation on clubs, which has operated well for a number of years. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 - The relevant licensing authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: I have a couple of questions for the Minister on clause 68. Is it a new provision, or does it relate to earlier legislation, in particular the 1964 Act? In how many instances do premises—in this case, club premises—straddle local authority areas? We dealt with that when we discussed pubs straddling licensing areas in various parts of the country, but we did not come to any agreement or discuss the scale of the incidence. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why this provision has been included. Is it simply lifted from earlier legislation, or has there been a growing problem in the intervening years since 1964 where licensed premises such as clubs fall on the boundaries of relevant licensing authorities? Does the definition of ''premises'' refer to one particular building? Are we talking about adjoining buildings, a group of buildings or buildings that are separated geographically but in the same town or village? Why is the provision included and what is the scale of the problem?

Kim Howells: I can confirm that the provision is new. The clause provides the means of determining which is the relevant licensing authority for the purpose of part 4. It provides that the relevant licensing authority for these purposes is the authority in which the premises, or the greater part of the premises, is situated. It approaches the determination of the relevant licensing authority in the same way that the Bill approaches premises licences. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
 Where club premises straddle two or more authority areas equally, there could be a problem. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many of those there are, but they must be rare. I have been informed by geographers that boundaries mainly go down the middle of highways and that buildings are usually on either side of them and not in the middle. However, I have also been told that in some market towns there might be a club or pub in a building that was formally a market building and the new configured boundary could go straight through the middle of it. Can the hon. Member for Isle of Wight give us an example?

Andrew Turner: No, but to extend the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, it is conceivable that a large university in a conurbation such as London might have three or four premises, all of which together form the student union. I am not sure whether student unions are covered by the clause, but that is an example.

Kim Howells: The Committee should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming up with that example. I, too, have found a couple of examples. There are very few premises that straddle boundaries, but Earls Court is one. There are also a few pubs on islands in rivers—boundaries often follow the course of rivers. The Bill is merely anticipating a problem and offering a solution. We do not know of any clubs that are so situated, but I am sure that we can dig some up before the end of proceedings.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister suggests that there are not many incidences of the problem. Why, then, has his Department seen fit to introduce a new clause for a situation that is hardly worth mentioning?

Kim Howells: It does happen occasionally, and, with great respect to the hon. Member for North Devon, the last thing that I want is to give food to lawyers. The clause provides an important mechanism for the resulting uncertainty, and will benefit clubs and local authorities alike.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 - Authorised persons, interested parties

Amendment proposed: No. 15, in 
clause 69, page 40, line 36, at end insert— 
 '( ) a body which— 
 (i) represents those who, in relation to any such area, are responsible for, or interested in, matters relating to the protection of children from harm, and 
 (ii) is recognised by the licensing authority for that area for the purposes of this section as being competent to advise it on such matters,'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Other definitions relating to clubs

Amendment proposed: No. 16, in 
clause 70, page 41, line 9, leave out 
 'for consumption on the premises where the supply takes place'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: May I ask the Minister about the definition of the word ''secretary''? I am not entirely clear why someone who is not an officer of the club should be able to act as a secretary. Surely, someone acting as a secretary should be recognised by club members as holding particular authority. If anybody in a club were allowed to be, or could claim to be, designated secretary, that role would be diminished. It would be better for there to be a designated secretary who was part of the club committee or, in the absence of a designated secretary, for another club member, such as the chairman, treasurer, or vice-chairman, to act as the designated person for the purposes of the Bill.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. There should be a single designated person. There is a risk that for the purposes of the clause, three or four people could purport to be the secretary.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding weight to what I said, as a lawyer—

Mark Field: A former lawyer.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend says that he is a former lawyer.

Mark Field: A long time ago.

Mark Hoban: A secretary of a company is a designated person with real standing and status who is appointed at the annual general meeting. However, under the Bill the person designated as secretary could be a typist who comes in one morning a week to type letters for the club chairman. If we are to give powers to someone who is meant to represent the club to the licensing authority, the club should ensure that that person has genuine status and is a genuine officer of the club, not just a typist, whether or not they are defined as a secretary.

Andrew Turner: May I raise a different matter relating both to this clause and other clauses? I have been waiting for a definition to appear—

Kim Howells: We are on clause 70 now.

Andrew Turner: I realise that, which is why I am raising the matter now. I have been waiting for a definition of the word ''club''. I heard my hon. Friend talk earlier about the Caravan Club, but I was not clear whether, for the current purpose, a club was an association of people or a set, or sets, of premises. It is possible for there to be a club without any premises? That is not set out anywhere in the Bill. What does the Minister understand to be the definition? Is a club an association of people related to a set, or sets, of premises?

Kim Howells: The appointment of a secretary is a matter for the club. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fareham did not mean to assert that somebody who happens to work as a typist—as he kept on describing them—is incapable of being the secretary of a club. Presumably if somebody is a coal miner they can still be the secretary of a miners institute—indeed, many are—but apparently, because somebody works as a typist they cannot be the secretary of a club.
Mr. Hoban rose—

Kim Howells: Whereabouts on the scale of typing does that begin and end?

Mark Hoban: The Minister is deliberately misinterpreting my words. I was trying to differentiate between somebody who is an officer of a club and somebody who undertakes clerical work on behalf of that club. Somebody who is a typist could be the club secretary in a formal sense. The point that I was trying to make is that whoever acts as the secretary of the club in relation to the licensing authority should be someone with the authority of the club behind them, rather than someone who is part of the clerical staff supporting that club.
 My own experience is that clubs tend to appoint somebody as a secretary, and that person wields great power and influence over the club. As a customer, that is what I expect of a secretary of a club. The definition in clause 70 states that anybody can be a secretary of a club, and that they do not have to be an officer. That is inappropriate if we are asking somebody to act with authority on behalf of a club.

Kim Howells: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to clarify what he meant, and that somebody who is a member of the honourable profession of typing—that now includes people who
 operate very complicated word processors—is capable of being elected as the secretary of a club.
Mr. Hoban indicated assent.

Kim Howells: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding.
 We are not talking about legislation under the Companies Acts and the position of a secretary for the purposes of that legislation. This is a matter for the club: as long as an individual is properly recognised by the club as its secretary, that is sufficient. What status it cares to give its secretary is for the club to decide. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to introduce such a degree of control freakery that we would determine how a club should regard its secretary.

Malcolm Moss: It seems to me that when a club has its annual general meeting, the three key positions are chairman, secretary and treasurer. Those are the three key people who run the committee, and who are looked up to by all club and committee members as the three most powerful and influential members of the club. Those are senior positions with a lot of responsibility.
 Most of the Bill is fairly regulatory in all sorts of ways—it tries to tie things down, and to ensure that the right people are in position to take on roles of responsibility and so forth—so I would have thought that the Government would say that the secretary ought to be an officer of the club. Otherwise the authority of the people purporting to speak on behalf of the club would be undermined. 
 Why have the Government adopted the phrase, 
''whether or not an officer of the club''?
 Is that part of existing legislation that has been moved across to this Bill, or have the Government thought differently about things and decided—for a reason that we have not yet heard—that the definition of secretary should have this looser and less responsible connotation.

Kim Howells: The short answer to that very long intervention is that we will leave it up to the club to decide. It will determine the status of that person within the club.
 Throughout this discussion I have had the feeling that there is a slight ignorance of the way in which clubs are run, and what happens inside them and between them. Without that, I am sure that lots of the amendments would not have appeared on the Order Paper in the first place. Clubs are perfectly capable of deciding the status of their officers within their organisations. They do not need us to tell them that such and such a person should be looked up to, looked down on—or, indeed, looked at on the level. That would be nonsense. The provision is perfectly adequate. 
 There would be only one secretary. I heard a suggestion earlier that there could be three secretaries—I think that the phrase, ''Any old person could be a secretary,'' was used—and that again shows ignorance of the way in which clubs are run. Without the definition in the Bill, a sizeable number of clubs would have to alter their constitution to qualify for a 
 club premises certificate. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman to understand the clause.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has not replied to my request, although I hoped that he would take the opportunity to do so. On the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, the problem with the clause relates to the words,
''performing the duties of a secretary''. 
Surely, we are talking about the duties of ''the secretary'' of the club and not the duties of ''a secretary'', which could vary from one institution to another. However, I should like the Minister now to consider the definition of a club.

Kim Howells: It was remiss of me to fail to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The term ''club'' does not have a recognised statutory definition. In the Bill, we have chosen to identify two types of club, qualifying clubs and recognised clubs—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard enough about them to drive him demented. Qualifying clubs have to fulfil the conditions set out in part 4 of the Bill if they want to take advantage of the special treatment provided under the Bill. I hope that that definition gives him some understanding as to why we have been examining the clauses in this way.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 - Application for club premises certificate

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 305, in
clause 71, page 41, line 18, leave out 'and habitually' and insert 'or'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 306, in 
clause 71, page 41, line 25, leave out 'a club' and insert 'an'.
 Amendment No. 307, in 
clause 71, page 41, line 25, at end insert 'and'.
 Amendment No. 308, in 
clause 71, page 41, line 27, leave out from 'form' to end of line 28.
 Amendment No. 309, in 
clause 71, page 41, line 29, leave out 'A ''club' and insert 'An '' '.
 Amendment No. 310, in 
clause 71, page 41, line 36, at end insert 
 'or hired out for functions to nonmembers of the club'.
 Amendment No. 311, in 
clause 72, page 42, line 18, leave out 'club'.
 Amendment No. 312, in 
clause 72, page 42, line 30, leave out 'qualifying club' and insert 'licensable'.

Malcolm Moss: These are probing amendments, as we were wondering why the word ''habitually'' appears in the Bill. Amendment No. 305 would remove the word
 and replace it with ''or'' so that subsection (1) would read:
''A club may apply for a club premises certificate in respect of any premises which are occupied by,''
 or 
''used for the purposes of, the club.''
 What is the definition of the word ''habitually''? Does it mean frequently or infrequently? The rate of usage is not defined. If the club has a premises and if it is active, all that needs to be said is that the premises is occupied and/or is used by the club for its activities. 
 Amendments Nos. 306 to 309 and 311 are an attempt to bring clause 71 closer to the wording of clause 18, which relates to the application for a premises licence for pubs and other institutions besides qualifying clubs. Clause 18(4) refers to the requirement to provide an ''operating schedule''. That requirement is replicated in clause 71(4), but there it is called a ''club operating schedule''. One queries whether the word ''club'' needs to be included. We are talking about clubs and applying for a club premises certificate, so it is obvious that a certificate will be given only if the club is a qualifying club and meets all the requirements that we discussed under earlier clauses, particularly 61, 62 and 63. We want to remove the words ''a club'' from subsection (4)(a), so that it refers to ''an operating schedule'', which would be adequate for the requirements of a premises certificate. Amendment No. 309 would remove the same words from subsection (5). Amendment No. 308 would delete subsection (4)(c), which deals with 
''a copy of the rules of the club.''
 We cannot see why a copy of the rules should be relevant at that stage. The club will already have met its requirements in good faith. Presumably it will have been accepted as a qualifying club and such a provision simply means more bureaucracy. 
 Amendment No. 310 would insert into the Bill the fact that club premises are often hired out for third-party events—occasions held by non-club members. Certain Conservative clubs in my constituency are hired out for weddings and most successful venues they prove to be. The amendment would insert at the end of subsection (5)(c) 
''or hired out for functions to non-members of the club'',
 which would be a requirement of the operating schedule that needs to be looked at before the premises certificate is given to the club. If a club were looking to hire out its premises for many unacceptable reasons, they ought to be known to the licensing authority and/or the police and dealt with accordingly. I cannot think of many instances when that might occur, but it seems to be sensible in light of the other requirements that such matters are stipulated under the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 311 would remove the word ''club'' from clause 72, while amendment No. 312 would remove from the clause ''qualifying club'' and insert ''licensable''. That would accord with the wording under clause 18 that we debated earlier.

Mark Hoban: I shall mention a couple of matters given that I doubt whether we shall have a clause stand
 part debate. I refer to ''plan'' under subsection (4)(b). It has been drawn to my attention by a licensing lawyer that some licensed premises may not have a plan that has been lodged with the magistrates. When the Bill comes into effect under the transitional arrangements, at what point will such premises be required to supply a plan to the new licensing authority? Will it be at the start of the transitional arrangements, at the end, or at the time of a subsequent review? That is an important issue for clubs and for other licensed premises that may be in that position.
 I am sure that the Minister will put me right on my other point. I hope that nothing in subsection (1) will preclude a club from qualifying for a licence for new premises that are not habitually used or occupied for the purposes of a club.

Kim Howells: Clause 71 sets out the arrangements for applying for a club premises certificate. Subsection (1) states that a qualifying club
''may apply for a club premises certificate in respect of any premises which are occupied by, and habitually used for the purposes of, the club.''
 Although we have taken steps to ensure that the special position of clubs is preserved under the new system, we are not proposing some sort of free-for-all for qualifying clubs. Local residents are entitled to as much protection from the activities of qualifying clubs as they are from licensed premises. 
 The licensing objectives are no less important for premises used by qualifying clubs than for other types of premises. That is why subsection (1) restricts the application for a club premises certificate to those premises that are habitually used by the club. Without that condition, the lighter-touch regime set out in the Bill for qualifying clubs in possession of a club premises certificate might be extended to a wide range of premises indeed, potentially undermining some of the checks, balances and protections provided.

Malcolm Moss: Perhaps the Minister will give some examples of what he meant by allowing certain other clubs or institutions to become qualifying clubs. I do not follow that.

Kim Howells: We were talking about ''habitually used''. I can think of a number of rugby clubs in my constituency, for example, in which drinking might certainly go on in the clubhouse. The fields, however, which sometimes do not adjoin the clubhouse, are also habitually used by rugby clubs but are not often used for drinking; they might occasionally be used that way for a fête or some other fundraising event. Generally, ''habitually'' has a specific meaning that I shall deal with under amendment No. 305. That amendment would make it explicit in the Bill that a club may apply for a club premises certificate to cover any premises that may be used for carrying out qualifying club activities.
 I hope that it has become clear during our debate on other amendments that the system that the Bill provides for qualifying clubs is designed to deliver a lighter-touch regime than that which applies to licensed premises in general. Of course, that does not mean that we can ignore the licensing objectives or the 
 legitimate concerns of local residents and the need for expert scrutiny by responsible authorities. 
 The Bill allows a qualifying club to apply for a certificate for the premises that it occupies and habitually uses. Departure from that ring-fencing test, as proposed under the amendment—I hope that this answers the hon. Gentleman—would not only undermine the promotion of the licensing objectives, particularly when the supply of alcohol is proposed, but would weaken protection for local residents and present the industry at large with a measure of unfair competition. We dealt with that issue earlier. Indeed, the amendment undermines some of the arguments deployed to justify the special position of the club movement. 
 Clause 71(4) states that 
''a club operating schedule . . . a plan of the premises to which the application relates . . . and a copy of the rules of the club''
 must accompany the application. The hon. Member for Fareham asked when a plan had to be submitted. When applying for the conversion of an existing licence during the transitional period, a plan of the premises must be deposited with the licensing authority. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the hon. Gentleman. 
 Amendments Nos. 306 to 309 and 311 would remove the requirement for the rules to accompany the application and would also remove the concept of the club operating schedule and replace it simply with an operating schedule. Amendment No. 312 would, by extension, remove the concept of a qualifying club activity and replace it with a reference to the licensing activity used in relation to licensed premises under part 3 of the Bill. The amendments would undermine the distinction between qualifying clubs and licensed premises. As I hope I have made clear during the debate, the special status of the club movement is worth preserving and that is reflected by the separate, although similar in several respects, systems in parts 3 and 4. Some may argue that that is a cosmetic distinction. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire hinted at that, but it is not the case. 
 There is a fundamental difference between the sale of alcohol under a premises licence and the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of qualifying clubs to members or guests under the authority of a club premises certificate. That difference arises from the fact that members of the qualifying club are already treated as owning the stock and the qualifying club supplies as opposed to sells alcohol to them, so the nature of qualifying club activities under the Bill is different from the set of licensable activities. 
 It makes sense therefore, if only for the sake of clarity, to set out the qualifying club activities in a special club operating schedule, especially when we consider the fact that nothing will prevent a club from applying for a premises licence to authorise activities that are not covered, or cannot be covered, by the club premises certificate—for example, the sale of alcohol to members of the public. Indeed, our expectation is that several qualifying clubs will have both a club premises certificate and a premises licence in respect of 
 premises. Furthermore, it makes sense that the rules of the club accompany an application so that the licensing authority can be sure that the club is a qualifying club. I hope that my explanation has helped the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. 
 Subsection (5) sets out the contents of the club operating schedule. It must include a statement of the relevant qualifying club activities, the times during which the relevant qualifying club activities are to take place, any other times during which it is proposed that the premises are to be open to members and their guests, the steps that it is proposed to take to promote the licensing objectives and such other matters as may be prescribed, and given the Government's amendment that has been agreed by the Committee when the supply of alcohol is involved, a statement about whether the club proposes to supply alcohol for consumption on the premises or both on and off the premises. 
 I understand that amendment No. 310 would require the club operating schedule to include details of any times during which the premises were to be hired out for functions to non-members of the club. Following on from the points that I have made, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the amendment would be unnecessary. Any licensable activities to be carried out during a function for which the premises were to be hired out to non-members of the club would not be covered by the authorisation provided by the club premises certificate. 
 A separate authorisation would need to be obtained by virtue of a premises licence under which all the provisions of the Bill would operate normally, including the provision of an operating schedule, an advertisement to local residents and notification to the responsible authorities—the police, fire and environmental health authorities. They would all apply. There would be no need for separate notification via the inclusion of the information proposed under the amendment and, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard that as reassuring and withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: Again, the more that I hear the Minister's reply to the debate, the more intrigued I am becoming. His performance makes me cogitate on other opportunities that may arise for the implementation of the Bill. One of our amendments, I forget which, would insert a further provision between subsection (5)(c) and (d). I have drawn my inspiration from the Freshwater Conservative club in my constituency and I am concerned about what is and what is not a licensable activity. The key distinction between a club and other premises is the requirement that people be members before alcohol can be sold to them. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I go down the wrong track, and the quicker he corrects me, the quicker I will be able to shut up.
 If a club decides to provide singing and dancing for its members, that is a licensable activity, but that is not at the root of the distinction between its club certificate and the licence that it might otherwise obtain. The 
 club needs to say if it is going to supply singing and dancing for its members when it applies for the premises certificate. If it is going to hire out the premises to another organisation to provide a discotheque, for example, the Minister has just explained that that has to be covered elsewhere in the legislation. But what would happen if it decides to hold a discotheque that is open to its members and members of the public?

Kim Howells: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is impossible to be intrigued by my last contribution. I was very impressed with it myself, but I was not intrigued by it. I can only assume that he was hypnotised by it because I am sure that he does know the difference between a club and other licensed premises. If the circumstances that he has just described took place, the club would need a premises licence. That is the difference, and many clubs have a premises licence as well as taking part in the arrangements specific to clubs.

Andrew Turner: So even if no alcohol is sold to the customers of the disco who are not members of the club, a premises licence is required?

Kim Howells: Yes.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification on amendment No. 310, which would have included the times for the hiring out of premises' functions to non-club members. I am clear in my own mind that that would need a separate premises licence. If entertainment were involved, that would presumably have to come under schedule 1 requirements as well. Am I right in thinking that a public entertainment licence would currently cover all those aspects, but in future there would need to be a premises and an entertainment licence?
Dr. Howells indicated assent.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister is nodding, so perhaps my interpretation is correct. In that situation is it more likely that the club will incur greater costs for those new requirements? It would be helpful to have a steer on that.
 I accept the Minister's definition of ''habitually'' and the need for premises to be in regular use by a club, as opposed to something quite different, and I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 305. As far as amendment No. 308 is concerned, I cannot understand why the licensing authority would want a copy of the rules of the club because by that stage the club will have jumped through so many hoops, particularly in relation to clauses 62 and 63. Under clause 63, it has to be established that the club is conducted in good faith, and the club has to make all sorts of assurances to the authority. I would have thought that those clauses covered all the requirements of the qualifying status for a club to enjoy those advantages and benefits. I cannot see why a copy of the club's rules must be provided as well. Who would read them and what bearing would that have on the key components required for the licence, to which I alluded, in clauses 62 and 63?

Kim Howells: That is a fair question, but the hon. Gentleman referred to earlier clauses under which a local authority, as the licensing authority, would examine a club's rules to ensure that it is a properly qualifying club. In those circumstances, it would not be an additional burden to ensure that the authority's copy is referred to or, indeed, the copy held by the club so that it can, as a proper organisation, check them if necessary at regular intervals. I do not believe that that is a great burden. The chances are that the copy of the club rules that would be referred to would be those already in the possession of the licensing authority.

Malcolm Moss: I hear what the Minister says, but he said earlier that the Government are not too fussed about who the secretary is and that he or she should merely be a nominated person and need not be an officer or even elected by the club members. We think that that is unsatisfactory, but the Minister is now insisting that
 the club provides a copy of its rules. There seems to be no consistency in ensuring that everything that the licensing authority needs to makes its decision is tied down. I would have greater faith in what the Minister is saying in relation to the need for the club rules to be handed in if he had been stronger on the need for the secretary to be elected, to be an officer of the club and to be on the committee. The secretary holds great power and under the Bill has considerable responsibilities. However, in the light of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 6 May at half-past Four o'clock.